Michael v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of James City (Virginia) that entered judgment in favor of appellee in an action alleging that after appellant had been judged a habitual offender, he drove in such a manner as to endanger the life, limb, or property of another, a violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2). With no proof as to whether the officer has caught the Appellant, using radar (Lidar), the Appellant took the defense that there was no evidence in the record as to appellant’s actually driving.

If you are facing a criminal case in James City, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

The reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom

Under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-357(B)(2) any person found to be an habitual offender under this article, who is thereafter convicted of driving a motor vehicle while the revocation determination is in effect shall be guilty of a felony if such driving of itself endangers the life, limb, or property of another or takes place while such person is in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, irrespective of whether the driving of itself endangers the life, limb or property of another and one of the offender’s underlying convictions is for Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-36.1, 18.2-266 or a parallel local ordinance

The reviewing court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.

Using Radar Calibration Defense With Lidar In Virginia.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Seeking Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Virginia Lawyers

If you are seeking Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Warner v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The Commonwealth charged defendant with speeding under James City County, Va., Code § 82-4-10, which tracked the language of and substance of the comparable Virginia Code Annotated provisions. Defendant stipulated the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to convict him, but moved to dismiss the § 82-4-10 charge because he was not provided an immediate hearing upon his request pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-936. Section 46.2-936 provided that a person issued a summons for a violation of the traffic code which was punishable as a misdemeanor had a right to an immediate hearing. Defendant requested such a hearing by noting it on the Virginia Uniform Summons of which both he and the officer had copies. However, the speeding infraction was not punishable as a misdemeanor, and, even if it had been, the remedy for violation of the rights under § 46.2-936 would not have been dismissal of the charge.
If you are facing a traffic case in James City, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

A person issued a summons for a violation of the traffic code which is punishable as a misdemeanor has a right to an immediate hearing. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-936. The remedy for violation of the rights under § 46.2-936 is not dismissal of the charge..

Constitutional violations may well require dismissal of the charges for violations. However, Virginia law has consistently held that exclusion or dismissal is not the remedy for violations of statutory rights.

Dismissal Of A Virginia Speeding Ticket – Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Traffic Lawyer – Virginia

If you are concerned about a Traffic Case in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Traffic Case – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Walter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of James City County (Virginia), defendant was convicted of a third or subsequent traffic offense of driving on a suspended or revoked license and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to five years for unauthorized use and 12 months for driving while suspended. Defendant appealed.

If you are facing a traffic case in James City, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Evidence of other crimes may be admissible if introduced to prove an element of the offense charged, or to prove any number of relevant facts, such as motive, intent, agency, or knowledge. Other crimes evidence may also be admissible when the charged crime is part of a general scheme and proof of that fact is relevant to prove an element of the offense, or to prove or explain how the crime was accomplished.

It is well settled that evidence of other crimes or bad acts of an accused is generally inadmissible in a criminal prosecution. The purpose of this rule is to prevent confusion of offenses, unfair surprise to the defendant and a suggestion of criminal propensity, thus preserving the presumption of innocence.

A nonconstitutional error is harmless if it plainly appears from the record and the evidence given at trial that the error did not affect the verdict. An error does not affect a verdict if a reviewing court can conclude, without usurping the jury’s fact finding function, that had the error not occurred, the verdict would have been the same.

Traffic Case – Virginia Attorneys

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

State Law 46.2 862 Charge – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a State Law 46.2 862 charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

State Law 46.2 862 defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Commonwealth v. Smith

Facts:

Defendant appealed her conviction by the Circuit Court of James City (Virginia) of reckless driving by speeding 70 miles per hour in a 45 miles-per-hour zone in Virginia State under Virginia Code Ann. § 46.2-862, following the denial of her motion to strike the evidence obtained by pacing to prove her speed, alleging that pacing as per law was not a method for determining speed listed in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882 is a statute permitting the admissibility of evidence. It is not a statute of exclusion. It sanctions four types of scientific evidence that determine speed by eliminating the need to prove that the underlying scientific principle or technique of the measuring device is reliable.

Nothing in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882 suggests it is meant to limit the means for proving speed. The statute itself states that speed “may” be determined by the enumerated means. “The word “may” is prima facie permissive, importing discretion, but the courts construe it to be mandatory when it is necessary to accomplish the manifest purpose of the Virginia legislature. Even lay witness testimony has always been an acceptable method of the speed of a car. The statute does not prevent the Commonwealth from proving a vehicle’s speed by other methods.

One of the easiest methods of proving a vehicle’s speed is by pacing. This involves accurately determining the speed of one vehicle while proceeding at a constant distance from a second vehicle. If the distance between the two vehicles remains constant, the speed of the second vehicle must be the same as the known speed of the first vehicle. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-942 clearly contemplates the use of pacing as a method of determining a vehicle’s speed by authorizing the admission of calibration tests to prove the accuracy of an arresting officer’s speedometer.

State Law 46.2 862 defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus In Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Kenith v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Appellant challenged his conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-30, 18.2-36, entered in the Circuit Court of James City (Virginia), claiming the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offense for which he had been detained by the police. The Commonwealth was able to prove that if the appellant’s attention were not diverted, he would have seen the school bus signs and flashing lights before he passed it. Judgment affirmed.

If you are facing a criminal case in James City, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. The judgment of a trial court will be disturbed only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support it

Criminal negligence is the basis for involuntary manslaughter and has been defined as acting consciously in disregard of another person’s rights or acting with reckless indifference to the consequences, with the defendant aware, from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that his conduct probably would cause injury to another.

A defendant accused of criminal negligence must have had prior knowledge of specific conditions that would likely cause injury to others.

How would the Police Prove I Passed A School Bus – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a 46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

James Peter v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants and with speeding 55 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone. Both charges grew out of the same driving activity. Defendant prepaid the speeding charge and claimed that Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862 converted his speeding charge to a reckless driving charge. Defendant alleged that he was convicted of speeding by virtue of this payment of the fines and costs and therefore he could not be prosecuted for the driving under the influence charge because Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1 prevented dual convictions of driving under the influence and reckless driving. On review, the court disagreed holding that defendant’s argument required that he be charged with and convicted of reckless driving. The court stated that speeding was a traffic infraction and reckless driving was a misdemeanor. In addition, the court determined that § 19.2-294.1 only applied if defendant was charged with driving under the influence and reckless driving. The court held that where the evidence supported prosecution under two parallel statutes, the Commonwealth had the right to elect under which statute to proceed.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Under Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-69.40:1, it is not possible for a defendant to prepay the fine for a reckless driving charge as it is expressly forbidden by Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-69.40:1(d).

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294 states that if a defendant is charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants and with reckless driving and he is convicted of one of those charges, then the court shall dismiss the remaining charge. The purpose of § 19.2-294 is to prevent the conviction of two different class one misdemeanors arising out of the same driving acts, when one of the misdemeanors is driving under the influence of intoxicants and the other is reckless driving. Where the evidence supports prosecution under either of two parallel statutes, the Commonwealth has the right to elect under which statute to proceed.

46.2-862 Charge Of Reckless Driving defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Penalty For Driving On A Suspended License – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about the Penalty For Driving On A Suspended License In Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Penalty For Driving On A Suspended License – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Jessica v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The petitioner filed for restoration of her operator’s license, alleging that her status as a habitual offender was based on her predicate convictions for driving on a suspended license resulting from failure to pay fines and costs as penalty for her driving offense. The prosecution asserted that petitioner was ineligible for reinstatement of her driving privileges under Va. Code § 46.2-361(B).

If you are facing a traffic case in James City, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

When a person has been adjudged an habitual offender based solely upon convictions of driving on a suspended license for failure to pay fines and costs, or failure to provide proof of financial responsibility, that person may petition the court at any time for restoration of his or her license upon proof that all outstanding fines and costs have been paid or that proof of financial responsibility has been furnished. In other words, there is no mandatory waiting period.

A suspension of a driver’s license under Va. Code § 46.2-706 or Va. Code § 46.2-390.1 is not one of those suspensions which, when it is a basis of predicate convictions, enables a person to seek restoration upon payment of all fines and costs.

Penalty For Driving On A Suspended License – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

82-1-6 / 46.2-852 Penalty – Virginia Lawyers

If you are concerned about a 82-1-6 / 46.2-852 Penalty In Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

82-1-6 / 46.2-852 Penalty – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Block v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant appealed from an order of the Circuit Court of James City (Virginia), which convicted him for reckless driving and feloniously driving after having been adjudicated an habitual offender in violation of Va. Code Ann. §§ 46.2-852 and 46.2-357(B)(2), respectively and also impose penalty for driving offense, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.

If you are facing a traffic case in James City, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852 provides, in part, that any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852. The word “recklessly” as used in the statute imparts a disregard by the driver of a motor vehicle for the consequences of his act and an indifference to the safety of life, limb or property. The essence of the offense lies not in the act of operating a vehicle, but in the manner and circumstances of its operation. Thus, the mere happening of an accident does not give rise to an inference of reckless driving. To convict, the Commonwealth of Virginia must prove every essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence which excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and consistent only with guilt.

Reckless driving is not a status offense, and a defendant cannot be convicted upon speculation and conjecture as to what caused him to lose control of the car.

82-1-6 / 46.2-852 Penalty – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

If you are concerned about the punishment for a Virginia Traffic Code 46.2-862 Charge, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Concerned about the punishment for a Virginia Traffic Code 46.2-862 Charge – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Greet v. Commonwealth

Facts:

A jury in the Circuit Court of James City County (Virginia) convicted defendant of reckless driving by speed, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862. Defendant appealed. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her proposed jury instruction that improper driving, an offense set forth in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-869, was a lesser-included offense of reckless driving by speed. The appellate court disagreed. Improper driving was not a lesser-included offense of reckless driving by speed. Every commission of reckless driving by speed did not also constitute improper driving. In addition, improper driving was not composed entirely of the elements of reckless driving by speed. Improper driving required an additional finding of slight culpability, an element excluded from § 46.2-862.

If you are facing a traffic case in James City, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.

For a defendant to be found guilty of reckless driving by speed under Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant was driving on a highway in the Commonwealth, and was driving (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

Concerned about the punishment for a Virginia Traffic Code 46.2-862 Charge – Attorneys In Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Reckless Driving Speeding Misdemeanor – Virginia Lawyers

If you are dealing with a Reckless Driving Speeding Misdemeanor charge in Virginia, contact our law firm immediately for help.

Reckless Driving Speeding Misdemeanor defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

James City Lawyers Violation Code 18.2-266

Dillon v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of James City (Virginia) of DUI in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. Defendant contended that the lower court was required to dismiss the DUI charge because he had already pled guilty and been convicted of an offense that was by statute deemed reckless driving. The court disagreed and held that reckless driving and speeding were separate and distinct offenses.

If you are facing a traffic case in James City, Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Reckless driving is chargeable and punishable under the provisions of Article 7 in the Motor Vehicle Code chapter on the regulation of traffic. Reckless driving is a Class 1 misdemeanor, Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-868, carrying with it the potential for a twelve month jail sentence and a fine of not more than $ 2,500 under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-1(a).

Under the express provisions of Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-294.1, only a conviction for reckless driving bars a prosecution for DUI. A conviction for speeding, even if premised on an underlying act that may have warranted a conviction for reckless driving, does not implicate the bar of the statute.

Reckless Driving Speeding Misdemeanor defense in Virginia

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.